For you it may well be. For me it mostly is.
You may have misunderstood.
They wrote 2a to protect 1a. Neither of which are generally supported by 'big government' supporters or 'authoritarians'.
Voting by white makes was assumed when they wrote the constitution. And there are national offices. Voting, clearly, is an important part of gov't. Guns are no part of the federal gov't outside the military.
Cunt wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:55 pmYou may have misunderstood.
They wrote 2a to protect 1a. Neither of which are generally supported by 'big government' supporters or 'authoritarians'.
Voting by white makes was assumed when they wrote the constitution. And there are national offices. Voting, clearly, is an important part of gov't. Guns are no part of the federal gov't outside the military.
The real point is statistical. If, on average, a given group is less likely to easily gain voter ID, then that group will be less represented than average in the count of those who vote. This does not just apply to black people, but also many of the poor and homeless, for example. There seems to be evidence that hurdles are placed, both in gaining voter ID, and being able to actually vote on the day, hurdles which are laughably easy to jump for white, middle-class educated people, but much harder for others. When such hurdles are deliberately created by conservative states, in the name of preventing very rare vote fraud, it is tantamount to deliberate, often racist disenfranchment.laklak wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:41 pmI get that, but that's not my question. Both voting and gun ownership are constitutional rights, and there's no hierarchy of rights, all are equal before the law. If it is OK to require a poor black man to have an ID to purchase a gun, then why isn't it OK to require the same poor black man to have an ID to vote? Same black man, same issues with getting an ID, it's exactly the same thing. Racist governmental restrictions are preventing him from exercising his constitutional rights like the rich white dude does. How is that OK? We restrict the right to keep and bear arms with lots and lots of different laws, which differ from state to state. Why is it not OK to do exactly the same thing to the vote?
"Guns are dangerous" or "Voting doesn't kill people" isn't an answer, a constitutional right is a constitutional right. Either change the constitution (good fucking luck with that) or stop being hypocritical.
That makes sense, but still doesn't answer the question. Requiring ID and a background check to purchase weapons is laughably easy for me, in fact, given my concealed carry license, I don't have to wait several days to pick up my gun (the "cooling down period") I get to walk out of the store with one. If you don't have an ID you cannot buy a gun, period, despite it being a constitutional right on exactly the same level as the right to vote. Even if you have an ID, if you don't have a concealed carry license you have to wait on your purchase, AND you cannot legally (in Florida, anyway) carry a gun for self-defense, which is something that folks in the ghetto need one fuck of a lot more than I do. Getting that license requires you to take a course, which is only given at certain locations, most of which are going to be in white areas because that's where the gun ranges are. It costs money to take the course and you have to pay the state for the license. How is that not discriminatory? Are poor black people not allowed to exercise their right to own weapons and protect themselves in the same way white folk are? Is this not racist discrimination on both a Federal and State level? I mean, if you can't get to the license bureau to get an ID to vote then you can't do it to buy a gun either.JimC wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:15 pm
The real point is statistical. If, on average, a given group is less likely to easily gain voter ID, then that group will be less represented than average in the count of those who vote. This does not just apply to black people, but also many of the poor and homeless, for example. There seems to be evidence that hurdles are placed, both in gaining voter ID, and being able to actually vote on the day, hurdles which are laughably easy to jump for white, middle-class educated people, but much harder for others. When such hurdles are deliberately created by conservative states, in the name of preventing very rare vote fraud, it is tantamount to deliberate, often racist disenfranchment.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago explicated the history of gun control as race control. Historically, people of color in the United States have often had to depend on themselves for protection. Sometimes the reason is not overt hostility by the government, but instead the incapability of government to secure public safety, as in Chicago today.
Self-defense is an inherent human right. The 14th Amendment is America’s promise that no law-abiding person will be deprived of that right, regardless of color.
You're right that there isn't really a difference from a purely linguistic standpoint, but the thing is, it would be absurd to interpret and implement the 2A as it is literally written, so we have collectively decided to infringe over the years. I can't have an ICBM on my front lawn, prisoners can't chill in their jail cells with AKs, etc. On the other hand, there's no real, rational reason to make it harder for black people to vote.laklak wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:41 pmThat makes sense, but still doesn't answer the question. Requiring ID and a background check to purchase weapons is laughably easy for me, in fact, given my concealed carry license, I don't have to wait several days to pick up my gun (the "cooling down period") I get to walk out of the store with one. If you don't have an ID you cannot buy a gun, period, despite it being a constitutional right on exactly the same level as the right to vote. Even if you have an ID, if you don't have a concealed carry license you have to wait on your purchase, AND you cannot legally (in Florida, anyway) carry a gun for self-defense, which is something that folks in the ghetto need one fuck of a lot more than I do. Getting that license requires you to take a course, which is only given at certain locations, most of which are going to be in white areas because that's where the gun ranges are. It costs money to take the course and you have to pay the state for the license. How is that not discriminatory? Are poor black people not allowed to exercise their right to own weapons and protect themselves in the same way white folk are? Is this not racist discrimination on both a Federal and State level? I mean, if you can't get to the license bureau to get an ID to vote then you can't do it to buy a gun either.JimC wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:15 pm
The real point is statistical. If, on average, a given group is less likely to easily gain voter ID, then that group will be less represented than average in the count of those who vote. This does not just apply to black people, but also many of the poor and homeless, for example. There seems to be evidence that hurdles are placed, both in gaining voter ID, and being able to actually vote on the day, hurdles which are laughably easy to jump for white, middle-class educated people, but much harder for others. When such hurdles are deliberately created by conservative states, in the name of preventing very rare vote fraud, it is tantamount to deliberate, often racist disenfranchment.
I honestly don't see the difference, if you support requiring ID and background checks for one then logically you should have no problem with requiring the same for the other, or for any other "right" like freedom of speech, assembly, religion, whatever.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests
